Stories from Slatehttp://www.slate.com/all.fulltext.danah_boyd.rss
Stories from SlateHow Politics, Race, and Socioeconomic Status Affect Parents' Fears About Techhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/11/21/study_shows_parents_tech_fears_depend_on_politics_socioeconomic_status_race.html
<p>Parents often fear technology. They worry that their children might be exposed to inappropriate pornographic or violent content online, or be negatively influenced or explicitly hurt by a stranger through social media. After hearing news coverage of horrific events, parents also fret that their kids might be bullied or bully someone else using digital tools.</p>
<p>Both federal and state governments are proposing interventions to address the real or imagined plague of Internet safety issues. For example, numerous states are considering or have passed bills that would target cyberbullying specifically, while members of Congress are seeking to address privacy concerns by restricting how youth can interact with sites that collect user information. But are such moves addressing risks that youth actually face? Whose concerns are they addressing?<br /> <br /> To get a sense for parental concerns and experiences, we conducted a nationally representative survey of U.S. parents and guardians with children 10-14 in their household. Analyzing responses from just over 1,000 parents, we found significant variation among them. Results showed that parental concerns vary significantly by background—notably race and ethnicity, income, metropolitan status, and political ideology. For example, black, Hispanic, and Asian parents are much more concerned than whites about certain online safety matters, even when controlling for socioeconomic factors and previous experiences with the various safety issues.</p>
<p>Lower&nbsp;socioeconomic parents were more likely to express concern about their children being bullied or becoming a bully. Asian-American parents had the highest fear about most online safety issues, followed closely by Hispanics. Urban parents were more concerned than both suburban and rural parents about every online safety issue we explored.</p>
<p>How political ideology influences concern very much depends on the specific online safety issue. Liberal parents were least concerned about their children meeting a stranger while moderates were the most, with conservatives in between. Liberals were also the least concerned about exposure to pornography—here conservative parents expressed the highest level fear. Conservatives were least concerned, however, about their children becoming a bullying victim or a bully. &nbsp;</p>
<p>We also inquired about previous experiences any of their children may have had with the issues: meeting a stranger, being exposed to violent content or pornography, and being bullied or being a bully. On the whole, very few people reported that they faced any of these problems. The most common safety issue that parents reported was exposure to pornography—but less than 19 percent reported having had experienced it.</p>
<p>Overall, our findings suggest that parental concerns don’t seem to match up with their lived experiences when it comes to meeting a stranger and exposure to violent content. They are especially worried about the possibility that a stranger will hurt their child, reflecting the pervasive anxiety about online sexual predators. Yet while such encounters are extraordinarily rare, the potential consequences of such an encounter are unthinkable. Still, the salience of parental fear about strangers in our data raises significant questions. Are parents especially afraid of strangers because this risk is particularly horrific? Or does their fear stem from the pervasive stranger-danger moral panics that have targeted social media as culprits, leading to the false impression that they are more common than they are?</p>
<p>How parents incorporate concerns into their parenting practices affects their children’s activities and behavior, drives technological development in the online safety arena, and shapes public discourse and policy. When parents are afraid, they may restrict access to technologies in an effort to protect their children from perceived dangers. Yet the efficacy of such restrictions is unclear. If fear-driven protective measures do little to curtail actual risk, then these actions are doing a huge disservice to children, and by extension society as a whole. The internet is a part of contemporary public life.&nbsp; Engagement with technology is key to helping youth understand the world around them. &nbsp;</p>
<p>While differences in cultural experiences may help explain some of our findings about parental concerns regarding children’s online safety issues, the results raise serious questions. Are certain parents more concerned because they have a higher level of distrust for technology? Are they bothered because they feel as though there are fewer societal protections for their children? Is it that they feel less empowered as parents? We don’t know, as very little research has looked at these issues. Still, our findings challenge policy-makers to think about the diversity of perspectives their law-making should address. <em><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1944-2866.POI332/full%20Learn"></a></em></p>
<p><em><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1944-2866.POI332/full">Learn more about our findings here</a>.</em></p>Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:42:05 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/11/21/study_shows_parents_tech_fears_depend_on_politics_socioeconomic_status_race.htmlDanah BoydEszter Hargittai2013-11-21T15:42:05ZTechnologyHow Politics, Race, and Socioeconomic Status Affect Parents' Fears About Tech203131121001familychildrenparentingDanah BoydEszter HargittaiFuture TenseFuture Tensehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/11/21/study_shows_parents_tech_fears_depend_on_politics_socioeconomic_status_race.htmlfalsefalsefalseHow Politics, Race, and Socioeconomic Status Affect Parents' Fears About TechHow Politics, Race, and Socioeconomic Status Affect Parents' Fears About TechPhoto by ThinkstockParents' biggest fears about the Internet can depend on demographic factors.If You're OK With Surveillance Because You Have &quot;Nothing to Hide,&quot; Think Againhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/11/prism_scandal_the_problem_with_nothing_to_hide_and_surveillance.html
<p><em>This post originally appeared on Danah Boyd’s blog <a href="http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2013/06/10/nothing-to-hide.html">Apophenia</a>.</em></p>
<p>Every April, I try to wade through mounds of paperwork to file my taxes. Like most Americans, I’m trying to follow the law and pay all of the taxes that I owe without getting screwed in the process. I try and make sure that every donation I made is backed by proof, every deduction is backed by logic and documentation that I’ll be able to make sense of seven years. Because, like many Americans, I completely and utterly dread the idea of being audited. Not because I’ve done anything wrong, but the exact opposite. I know that I’m filing my taxes to the best of my ability and yet, I also know that if I became a target of interest from the IRS, they’d inevitably find some checkbox I forgot to check or some subtle miscalculation that I didn’t see. And so what makes an audit intimidating and scary is not because I have something to hide but because proving oneself to be innocent takes time, money, effort, and emotional grit.</p>
<p>Sadly, I’m getting to experience this right now as Massachusetts refuses to believe that I moved to New York mid-last-year. It’s mind-blowing how hard it is to summon up the paperwork that “proves” to them that I’m telling the truth. When it was discovered that <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/06/nsa_verizon_phone_records_national_security_agency_order_collects_metadata.html">Verizon (and presumably other carriers) was giving metadata</a> to government officials, my first thought was: Wouldn’t it be nice if the government would use that metadata to actually confirm that I was in NYC, not Massachusetts? But that’s the funny thing about how data is used by our current government. It’s used to create suspicion, not to confirm innocence.</p>
<p>The frameworks of “innocent until proven guilty” and “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” are really, really important to civil liberties, even if they mean that some criminals get away. These frameworks put the burden on the powerful entity to prove that someone has done something wrong. Because it’s actually pretty easy to generate suspicion, even when someone is wholly innocent. And still, even with this protection, innocent people are sentenced to jail and even given the death penalty. Because if someone has a vested interest in you being guilty, it’s not impossible to paint that portrait, especially if you have enough data.</p>
<p>It’s disturbing to me how often I watch as someone’s likeness is constructed in ways that contorts the image of who they are. This doesn’t require a high-stakes political issue. This is playground stuff. In the world of bullying, I’m astonished at how often schools misinterpret situations and activities to construct narratives of perpetrators and victims. Teens get really frustrated when they’re positioned as perpetrators, especially when they feel as though they’ve done nothing wrong. Once the stakes get higher, all hell breaks loose. In <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812992806/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0812992806&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=slatmaga-20"><em>Sticks and Stones</em></a>, <strong><em>Slate </em></strong>senior editor Emily Bazelon details how media and legal involvement in bullying cases means that they often spin out of control, such as they did in South Hadley. I’m still bothered by the conviction of <a href="http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2012/03/19/dharun-ravi-guilty.html">Dharun Ravi</a> in the highly publicized death of Tyler Clementi. What happens when people are tarred and feathered as symbols for being imperfect?</p>
<p>Of course, it’s not just one’s own actions that can be used against one’s likeness. Guilt-through-association is a popular American pastime. Remember how the media used Billy Carter to embarrass Jimmy Carter? Of course, it doesn’t take the media or require an election cycle for these connections to be made. Throughout school, my little brother had to bear the brunt of teachers who despised me because I was a rather rebellious student. So when the Boston Marathon bombing occurred, it didn’t surprise me that the media went hogwild looking for any connection to the suspects. Over and over again, I watched as the media took friendships and song lyrics out of context to try to cast the suspects as devils. By all accounts, it looks as though the brothers are guilty of what they are accused of, but that doesn’t make their friends and other siblings evil or justify the media’s decision to portray the whole lot in such a negative light.</p>
<p>So where does this get us? People often feel immune from state surveillance because they’ve done nothing wrong. This rhetoric is perpetuated on American TV. And yet the same media who tells them they have nothing to fear will turn on them if they happen to be in close contact with someone who is of interest to—or if they themselves are the subject of—state interest. And it’s not just about now, but it’s about always.</p>
<p>And here’s where the implications are particularly devastating when we think about how inequality, racism, and religious intolerance play out. As a society, we generate suspicion of others who aren’t like us, particularly when we believe that we’re always under threat from some outside force. And so the more that we live in doubt of other people’s innocence, the more that we will self-segregate. And if we’re likely to believe that people who aren’t like us are inherently suspect, we won’t try to bridge those gaps. This creates societal ruptures and undermines any ability to create a meaningful republic. And it reinforces any desire to spy on the “other” in the hopes of finding something that justifies such an approach. But, like I said, it doesn’t take much to make someone appear suspect.</p>
<p>In many ways, the NSA situation that’s unfolding in front of our eyes is raising a question that is critical to the construction of our society. These issues cannot be washed away by declaring personal innocence. A surveillance state will produce more suspect individuals. What’s at stake has to do with how power is employed, by whom, and in what circumstances. It’s about questioning whether or not we still believe in checks and balances to power. And it’s about questioning whether or not we’re OK with continue to move toward a system that presumes entire classes and networks of people as suspect. Regardless of whether or not you’re in one of those classes or networks, are you OK with that being standard fare? Because what is implied in that question is a much uglier one: Is your perception of your safety worth the marginalization of other people who don’t have your privilege?</p>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:14:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/11/prism_scandal_the_problem_with_nothing_to_hide_and_surveillance.htmlDanah Boyd2013-06-11T15:14:00ZTechnologyIf You're OK With Surveillance Because You Have &quot;Nothing to Hide,&quot; Think Again203130611001government surveillanceprismprivacyDanah BoydFuture TenseFuture Tensehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/11/prism_scandal_the_problem_with_nothing_to_hide_and_surveillance.htmlfalsefalsefalseIf You're OK With Surveillance Because You Have &quot;Nothing to Hide,&quot; Think AgainIf You're OK With Surveillance Because You Have &quot;Nothing to Hide,&quot; Think AgainPhoto by Mario Tama/Getty ImagesA supporter holds a sign at a small rally in support of NSA whistle-blower Edward SnowdenJoin Slate in Washington for a Free Screening of the Nerd Classic Hackershttp://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/11/28/hackers_screening_a_future_tense_event_hosted_by_danah_boyd.html
<p><em>In the series &quot;My Favorite Movie,&quot; <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/03/future_tense_emerging_technologies_society_and_policy_.html">Future Tense</a>—a partnership of Arizona State University, the New America Foundation, and <strong>Slate</strong> that explores emerging technologies—invites notable thinkers, policymakers, and journalists to share a film that they feel can inform the discussion of science and technology. On Monday, Dec. 10, Microsoft researcher danah boyd will host a screening of Hackers at Washington, D.C.’s <a href="http://www.landmarktheatres.com/market/washingtondc/estreetcinema.htm">Landmark E Street Cinema</a> at 555 11<sup>th</sup> St</em>.<em>, at 6:30 p.m. danah will introduce the film, discuss its influence, and take questions as the credits roll</em>.<br /> </p>
<p><em>If you would like to join us, RSVP to <a href="mailto:Futuretensedc@gmail.com">Futuretensedc@gmail.com</a> with your name, email address, and any affiliation you’d like to share. You may RSVP for yourself and up to one guest, and please include your guest’s name in your response. Seating is limited, so email now to get in on this rare opportunity to see </em>Hackers <em>in a theater. </em></p>
<p><em>Here's danah boyd's explanation for why she chose this film:</em></p>
<p>The 1995 film <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/6305047456/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=6305047456&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=slatmaga-20">Hackers</a></em> celebrates the geek culture that I knew as a teen, including the hacker and cyberpunk scenes. It naively highlights the way in which smart teens, armed with knowledge and skills, can out-maneuver corrupt and stupid adults, partly for justice and partly for the fun. And, as with all good young adult fiction modeled after superhero stories, the ostracized and disrespected social outcasts save the day.</p>
<p>Fast-forward 17 years and a new ethos of hacker culture is ever-present, shaped by many of the dynamics that are familiar to me and caricatured in this film. Unlike hackers of old, today's youth are hacking the attention economy, but they're still calling into question the powers that be. Embracing sites like 4chan and masks signaling Anonymous, today's youthful hackers are once again demonized and threatening to the status quo. This film serves as a basis for having a thoughtful conversation about the intersection of youth culture, hackers, and digital life.<br /> </p>Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:32:49 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/11/28/hackers_screening_a_future_tense_event_hosted_by_danah_boyd.htmlDanah Boyd2012-11-28T17:32:49ZTechnologyJoin
<strong><em>Slate </em></strong>in Washington for a Free Screening of the Nerd Classic
<em>Hackers</em>203121128001hackersanonymousDanah BoydFuture TenseFuture Tensehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/11/28/hackers_screening_a_future_tense_event_hosted_by_danah_boyd.htmlfalsefalsefalseJoin <strong><em>Slate </em></strong>in Washington for a Free Screening of the Nerd Classic <em>Hackers</em>Join <strong><em>Slate </em></strong>in Washington for a Free Screening of the Nerd Classic <em>Hackers</em>